Something
is happening with the politics of identity, both on the Democratic and Republican
sides. A profound political adjustment is taking place. Let me start with
the Democrats.

While
watching CNN on the evening of Super Tuesday (February 5th), when such a large
percentage of delegates in both the 2008 Democratic and Republican conventions
were to be selected, I was struck by an early report on the California primary
results. Hillary Clinton was ahead in the state vote total, but Barack Obama
had the largest share of both the black and white votes. How could this be?
The commentator explained that Clinton was far ahead with respect to two other
voting blocs that were important in California politics: Hispanic and Asian
voters.

The
standard paradigm that has governed Democratic politics is that black Americans
and other racial or ethnic minorities are oppressed or discriminated against
by the white majority population. They are all in the same political boat.
By that logic, then, Hispanic and Asian voters should have voted for the black
candidate, Barack Obama, rather than for the white female, Hillary Clinton.
They voted for Clinton instead. Why should this be?

Back
in June 2003, when I ran for President and made a point of protesting identity
politics, I had the opportunity to meet the chairman of the California Democratic
Party, who was Hispanic. Perhaps supposing that I was a white racist, this
man greeted me with the remark that Hispanics were white people. This may
have been a conversational gambit anticipating my supposed political views
but it may also been a reflection of the fact that tension exists between
the black and Hispanic communities. Black and Hispanic gangs fight each other
in Los Angeles. Many Hispanics are repelled by black ghetto behavior and are
not afraid to say so. (They have an immunity against racist accusations
that would be leveled against whites who expressed similar views.)

Hillary
Clinton, being white, does not carry that baggage. Guided by her campaign
manager Terence Mc Auliffe, she practices the standard Democratic politics
of racial, ethnic, and gender division, which in the past has been able to
capture a majority of the black vote and, to a lesser extent, the vote of
females, Asians, Hispanics, and other groups.

But
this year there is a black man, Obama, who stands a real chance of winning
the Presidency. After some hesitation concerning electability, most blacks
have jumped on the Obama bandwagon for understandable reasons. White voters,
in turn, like his message of racial unity. Some Democratic partisans may grumble
that Barack Obama is not black enough - meaning, in part, that
he refuses to practice the politics of black victimhood - but most whites,
I think, are tired of being cast in an unfavorable light in the type of politics
that was launched by the Civil Rights movement. Whether or not they will admit
it, theyre grateful to Obama for calling for an end to that politics
and helping them recover some of their racial dignity.

Therefore,
we have an alliance between black people and upper-middle-class whites - and
I would count myself in that camp - who favor Obama over Clinton. In contrast,
Hillary Clinton enjoys support from working-class whites, who are competing
with blacks for jobs, and from Asians and Hispanics, who have victimhood status
in the Democrats rainbow coalition. As the first prominent
female candidate for President, Clinton enjoys a certain favor from women
generally. My wife, who is Asian, feels a womanly kinship with Hillary Clinton
and all shes gone through.

Obama,
in contrast, is a dynamic force heralding a new politics. His special tie
with Oprah Winfrey means that he will also gain support from a certain number
of white women who identify with Oprahs personal recovery
message. There is even an indication that some white men, who previously supported
John Edwards, are coming over to the Obama camp.

While
the Democrats this year have the first black and first female
candidates with a serious chance of being elected President, the Republicans
have the first Mormon. This may not seem so big a deal after John F. Kennedys
election as President in 1960 supposedly ended the influence of religious
prejudice in national elections. Being a Mormon, however, has proven to be
a formidable barrier in Mitt Romneys campaign for the Republican nomination.

Romney,
a deeply religious man, might have thought that Christian evangelicals would
consider him a kindred spirit. He initially based his campaign upon appealing
to social conservatives, making common cause with them against encroachment
upon religious values by secular society. Romney did not take into consideration
the degree of hostility toward Mormons by Christian fundamentalists. He tried
to placate such groups by making a Kennedy-like statement separating his personal
religious views from his political orientation. Even so, Mike Huckabee, an
ordained minister, moved in to take away Romneys support among evangelical
voters in Iowa and other states.

This
was an appeal to raw prejudice, but it worked. At this point (a day after
Super Tuesday), Mitt Romney is either finished as a serious contender for
the Republican nomination or else he is severely wounded. (Note: Romney ended
his campaign on February 7th.) For some reason, appealing to anti-Mormon prejudice
is not seen as reprehensible as appeals to race prejudice, for instance, would
be.

While
Mitt Romney was beginning his presidential campaign. a Hollywood film came
out that shamelessly cast the Mormon patriarch, Brigham Young, as a man who
orchestrated or condoned mass murder. Romney also had his detractors in the
media. But Mike Huckabees success as a presidential candidate was his
worst nightmare come true; and unquestionably the most deadly arrow in Huckabees
quiver was the fact that Mitt Romney belonged to that cult-like organization,
the Mormon church.

Republicans,
of course, do not make as much of group discrimination as the Democrats do.
With our declining educational institutions and the rise of politicized religion,
we may be a less tolerant people than those who a half century ago forgave
John Kennedy for being a Catholic after he convinced them he would not let
the Vatican dictate his policies as President. The old anti-Catholic prejudice
from the 1920s was partly based upon supposed connections with a foreign power.
At least, if Mitt Romney took dictation from the Mormon hierarchy, it would
be from a domestic power.

Whatever
one might think of its doctrines, the Mormon church, headquartered in Salt
Lake City, is as American as apple pie. In fact, its prophet, Joseph Smith,
was a candidate for U.S. President before he was killed by a lynch mob. Therefore,
I cannot overlook the hypocrisy of letting religious prejudice ruin Mitt Romneys
presidential aspirations while in our country it has become almost a civic
duty to oppose prejudice and discrimination against nearly every other minority
group.